Opinion
Kansan
Published daily since 1912
Ann Premer, Editor Jamie Holman, Business manager Gerry Doyle, Managing editor Sara Cropper, Retail sales manager Angie Kuhn, Managing editor Dan Simon, Sales and marketing adviser Tom Eblen, General manager, news adviser Justin Knupp, Technology coordinator
Tuesday, February 16, 1999
Robert James Novak / KANSAN
Editorials
Senate recorded proper decision in Clinton's impeachment trial
The U.S. Senate made the correct decision Friday when it acquitted President Clinton of two impeachment charges.
Although Clinton's conduct during and after his affair with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky was shameful, it did not warrant an overturning of the presidential election.
Senators failed to reach a two-thirds majority on either of the two counts against President Clinton. Five Republican senators joined their Democratic colleagues in voting down the charge of obstruction of justice, and 10 Republicans voted
The president's disgraceful affair with an intern did not require removal from office.
against the perjury charge.
All 45 of the Senate's Democrats reelected both counts.
Following the historic vote, senators from both parties expressed gratitude that the five-week impeachment trial had been brought to a close.
Be that as it may, it is foolish to believe that this saga now belongs to the pages of history.
Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr still may pursue an indictment against the president. Clinton himself will spend the remainder of his second term dealing with a Republican-dominated congress that tried to force him from office.
Clinton also stands to face the same historical fate as Andrew Johnson, who survived a similar impeachment trial in 1868. Regardless of any other contributions, Clinton's legacy has been blemished by disgrace to the nation's highest elected office. That alone will be punishment enough for him.
Jeremy Doherty for the editorial board
Concealed guns bring aura of danger
Some Kansas legislators apparently want to give certain individuals the right to carry a concealed handgun. Obviously, these legislators are grossly mistaken. Such a law is erroneous and blatantly dangerous.
The bill under consideration in the Legislature would allow the Kansas Bureau of Investigation the right to grant licenses to individuals who are at least 21 years of age, have completed a weapons safety and training course, have no felony convictions, and have no history of mental illness or drug and alcohol abuse in the previous five years. The Legislature passed a similar bill two years ago, but Governor Bill Graves vetoed it - as he is likely to again.
Bill supporters suggest that states that have passed similar laws have shown significant decreases in violent crimes. According to Cease
A proposed bill would be ineffective in battling violent crime in Kansas.
Fire, a gun control advocacy group, violent crime rates have been decreasing in all states. Moreover, while gun manufacturers and their supporters declare guns effective for self-protection, only about 65,000 incidents of defensive uses of guns are reported each year, compared to the more than 800,000 incidents of violent handgun crimes. Reports of accidental shootings also have increased in these states.
Terri Moses, deputy chief of the Wichita Police Department, testified against the bill Feb. 8. She said the bill would be detrimental for three reasons: it removes local governments' control, it increases the number of guns on the street and it creates an atmosphere of fear. Furthermore, though the bill's proponents suggest women would be safer with the law, Moses said that idea is short-sighted and unrealistic.
Legislators obviously are misguided. Though public safety is and should remain a concern for lawmakers, legitimating the use of guns is an ill-conceived solution to violent crime problems. Students and others with similar feelings should contact their state legislator and encourage the representative to vehemently oppose the bill.
One goal of society should be to work for peaceful resolution, not vigilante justice. This bill only can inhibit progress in the fight against crime, as it could allow for situations similar to those of the Wild West.
Chris Borniger for the editorial board
Kansan staff
Ryan Koerner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Editorial
Jeremy Doherty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Associate editorial
Aaron Marvin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . News
Laura Roddy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . News
Melissa Ngo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . News
Aaron Knopf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Online
Erin Thompson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sports
Marc Sheforgen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Associate sports
Chris Fickett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Campus
Sarah Hale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Campus
T.R. Miller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Features
Steph Brewer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Association features
Augustus Anthony Piazza . . . . . . . . . . Photo
Chris Dye . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Design, graphics
Carl Kaminski . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wire
Carolyn Mollett . . . . . . . . . . Special sections
Laura Veazey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . News clerk
News editors
Matt Lopez . . . Special sections
Jennifer Patch . . . Campus
Micah Kafitz . . . Regional
Jon Schlitt . . . National
Tyler Cook . . . Marketing
Shannon Curran . PR/ Intern manager
Christa Estep . Production
Steven Prince . Production
Chris Corley . Creative
Jason Hannah . Classified
Corine Buffmire . Zone
Shauntae Blue . Zone
Brandl Byram . Zone
Brian Allers . Zone
Justin Allen . Zone
Advertising managers
Broaden your mind: Today's quote
"Success can make you go one of two ways. It can make you a prima donna, or it can smooth the edges, take away the insecurities, let the nice things come out."
How to submit letters and guest columns
Letters: Should be double-spaced typed and fewer than 200 words. Letters must include the author's signature, name, address and telephone number plus class and home-town if a University student. Faculty or staff must identify their positions.
Barbara Walters
Guest columns: Should be double-
spaced typed with fewer than 700 words. The
writer must be willing to be photographed for
the column to run.
All letters and guest columns should be submitted to the Kansan newsroom, 111 Staufer-Flint Hall. The Kansan reserves the right to edit, cut to length or reject all submissions. For any questions, call Ryan Koerner or Jeremy Doherty at 864-4924.
I've never been good with funerals. When a close friend died my freshman year, I sobbed uncontrollably during
If you have general questions or comments, e-mail the page staff (opinion@kansan.com) or call 864-4924.
Perspective
Loss of mentor, teacher requires self-reflection
the funeral service. I my actions, but death is something for which no one can ever really emotionally prepare.
Only three people close to me have died during my lifetime. I know I should count myself lucky, but I don't. Especially when John Ginn, a friend and former journalism professor of mine, died last week.
Saturday's funeral service was beautiful, as I
Aaron Marvin
goinion@tansan.com
knew it would be. Family, friends, students and former students shuffled into the Plymouth Congregational Church to bid farewell to a great man.
Former Kansan editors mingled with present Kansan editors, journalism professors mingled with John Ginn's family. We pointed and giggled at the collage of old photos of our friend at various stages of his life on display in the foyer, all the while trying not to acknowledge why we all were there. Then the service began.
My body stiffened as the pastor began to speak. I promised myself I would be strong that I wouldn't turn into that sobbing fool I knew I could become. In my mind, I was doing it for my friend. But in my heart, I knew that was a lie. I was doing it for me.
The eulogy touched my deeply, as I'm sure it did everyone. The pastor spoke of John Ginn's will to live, his fierce battle with cancer for 15 years and how we should be content that our friend is now with God.
It should have made me feel better. But it didn't. I know it's selfish, but I wasn't ready for him to go.
"There are too many things he still needed to teach me. I need his help if I'm to become as great a journalist as he was," I kept thinking throughout the service. I couldn't help but feel somewhat betrayed that he left
before I was ready.
As of Sunday, I had been dealing with the grief of losing a friend for nearly a week, though it hadn't hit me full-force until the funeral service. Grief literally consumed me while I was at work Saturday and then later when I went out with some friends. I couldn't think of anything else until late that night, when an image popped into my mind: John Ginn, leaning back in his chair, with his hands crossed behind his head.
Later, I reflected upon those thoughts, and I couldn't believe that they were mine. I couldn't understand why at the funeral of a friend, I would spend more time thinking of myself than of him and his family. How could I be so insensitive? Easy, I concluded. Grief made me do it.
Grief is a demanding mistress. At its bidding, we think strange thoughts. When it's at our side, we think of little else but it and ourselves. And though it's not the least bit enjoyable, we feed on grief, which makes us feel worse.
Whenever John Ginn would talk to me about my progress in his editorial-writing class last spring, he always would lean back in his chair and cross his hands behind his head. Beyond his achievements, that's my most treasured memory of that great man, which probably explains why that image brought a big smile to my face. It seems like a simple thing, and it is. I have no other explanation for it than finally realizing that John Ginn is getting a much-deserved rest from a life he lived so fiercely.
It took me a few days to come to some sort of closure, but I made it. I've successfully pushed aside the selfishness and replaced it with even more respect for a man who did as much as he could to help me become the journalist I am today. And I don't regret the tears that now stream down my cheeks. They're merely another way to thank John Ginn for everything he did for me.
Marvin is an Atchison senior in journalism and a Kansan news editor.
U.S. actions against Iraq violate international law
Ian
Lowe
Guest columnist
"crisis" or "showdown" in Iraq, it is important to remember that these are highly nuanced terms that barely describe the monstrous and ruthless nature of U.S. policy toward Iraq. In fact, it is impossible to evaluate U.S. policy in any instance without looking to the reality of the situation — perhaps a highly unthinkable notion.
Although the U.S. media and many ideologues apologetic of U.S. actions often refer to the
A good starting point might be the thick veils of distortion that obscure the U. S. role in Iraq.
It comes as no surprise that the media, along with the University Daily Kansan, have not been critical of the United States, going to remarkable lengths to exhort the merits of recent U.S. policy and military involvement.
Perhaps it is a convenient omission, but there has not been even a whisper that U.S. actions are an indisputable defiance of international law.
The United States and Britain announced to the world, with almost absurd and comical proportions, that our actions are indeed criminal and violent.
The U.N. Charter says quite unmistakably that "The Security Council determines any threat to peace, breach of peace, or act of aggression," allowing no exceptions, minus the right of self-defense.
I guess we can boot firmly the entire legal framework of the United Nations out the door, not having to worry about such archaic and bothersome conventions as international law.
In fact, all actions toward Iraq are constrained by Security Council Resolution 1154, which laid down the threat of "severest consequences" if Iraq continued to be uncooperative with UNSCOM.
All member states, with the exception of the United States and Britain, concluded with unanimous conviction that under no circumstances should a member state undertake its own military retaliation, something that clearly slipped the United States' mind.
In this case, the United States has done more than just orchestrate an impressive disregard for international law; we have
Of course, it is scarcely known that Iraq is incapable of producing the top allowable amounts of oil because its ability to process and pump oil was demolished by the 1991 war, or that the World Health Organization and World Food Program carefully have monitored Iraq's distribution of all food and medicine as required by Resolution 986. Both U.N. organizations gave every Iraqi governate an "A" rating.
Iraq, unfortunately, has experienced a dissolution of these standards as a direct outcome of the embargo. By UNICEF's own estimates, 5,000 to 6,000 children younger than five die each month because of easily curable diseases that result from a lack of clean water, medicine and supplies.
At best, postwar sanctions have been murderous, serving only to reinforce elite control, bringing up the obvious question: Why is it that we insist on their continuance?
Most critics of U.S. involvement in Iraq think that Saddam is a corrupt political figure who ignores international law, capable of blatant acts of lawlessness and aggression, but so is the United States. No clause exists, to my knowledge, in the U.N. Charter that allows a state to abdicate its responsibility to international law.
It is doubtlessly true that Saddam's regime has existed as a despotic, ruthless military dictatorship for 20 years, supported by the United States for its first 12 years, a period of innumerable human rights violations.
U. S. doctrinal institutions reflect the narrow spectrum of thought that is permissible, often overlooking many historical facts that paint the United States in a more sinister light. For example, the United States, followed by the United Kingdom, succeeded in shielding Saddam, who was at the time a trading partner and likable friend, from international censure right through the period of his greatest crimes, including the gassing of the Kurds. In another ironic turn of events, we supported him after the Gulf War in March 1991 as he quashed a Shi'ite uprising in the South that challenged his regime.
reiterated Bush's principle of "What We Say Goes," a phrase originally enumerated during the bombing raids of February 1991.
Maybe this concept is too outlandish for the world's self-described "greatest" and "most powerful" state: 570,000 dead and counting.
4
Lowe is a Phoenix junior in political theory.